Afifi v. McLaughlin & Sanchez LLP

Background

Sabrina Afifi applied to proceed without paying the filing fee, and the court granted that application. The court then reviewed her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires screening of a complaint filed by a person allowed to proceed without paying fees.

Afifi named Darryl Yorkey, McLaughlin Sanchez LLP, Michael McLaughlin, and Andre Sanchez as defendants. She alleged that Yorkey engaged in a “campaign of procedural manipulation,” including filing defective documents, making false representations, and interfering with her access to justice. She alleged that the other defendants received communications about the alleged misconduct but failed to respond or intervene.

The complaint asserted claims for negligent supervision; enabling harassment and procedural abuse; violations of California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4; sanctionable conduct under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and abuse of process. The opinion states that Afifi did not specify the basis for federal jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction and screening

Federal courts may hear only matters within their subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that the complaint did not assert a federal claim, so it did not establish federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The court also considered diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. That form of jurisdiction generally requires all plaintiffs to be citizens of different states from all defendants and at least $75,000 in controversy. The court said Afifi had not alleged facts suggesting diversity jurisdiction. It noted addresses listed for Yorkey and for McLaughlin Sanchez LLP in court records and removed state-court pleadings, and concluded that diversity of citizenship did not appear to be present. The court also said it was not apparent that at least $75,000 was in controversy, because the related unlawful-detainer action identified less than $25,000 as the amount in controversy.

Because the complaint appeared not to establish federal jurisdiction and also appeared not to plausibly state a claim, the court issued an order to show cause. An order to show cause gives a party an opportunity to explain why a proposed action should not be taken.

Order

The court ordered Afifi to file, no later than October 21, 2025, either an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or a response explaining why the existing complaint is sufficient. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It stated that if Afifi did not respond by the deadline, the case would be reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The order also stated that any amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in the order and must be titled “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The opinion text contains an apparent inconsistency because that instruction refers to case number 19-cv-06894, while the caption identifies this case as 25-cv-07984-JCS.